History of English Humour, Vol. 1 (of 2) eBook

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

* * * *
*

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Of course this will scarcely apply in those cases
in which, by abstraction, we overlook the creative
action of the mind, and regard its humorous productions
as ludicrous. Nor does it hold good where from
long exercise of ingenuity a habit has been formed
and amusing fancies spring up, as it were naturally,
and so involuntarily that, for the moment, we see
them only as ludicrous. This view changes almost
instantaneously, and beneath it we often find the
best humour. It may be said that such cases should
be placed entirely under the head of humour, but can
we maintain that a man is unaware when he is humorous?
The most telling effects are produced by the ludicrous,
and where the creative action of the mind is scarcely
discernible. Efforts to be humorous are seldom
crowned with success; we require something that appears
to be real or original, either as a close rendering
of actual occurrences, or a spontaneous efflorescence
of genius. Among the latter class we may reckon
some of our most exquisite and permanent sayings.

[2] A story is told of a Mr. Crispe, a merchant of
London, who although deaf, when Sir Alexander Cary
made a speech before his execution, followed the motion
of his lips so as to be able to relate it to his friends.

[3] Mrs. Barbauld had such a perpetual smile that
one of her friends said it made her jaws ache to look
at her.

[4] St. Paul, who was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel,
gives a different account in Rom. iv. 19. See
also Heb. xi. 11.

[5] Soame Jenyns strangely imagined that a portion
of the happiness of Seraphim and of just men made
perfect would be derived from an exquisite perception
of the ludicrous; while Addison mentions that a learned
monk laid it down as a doctrine that laughter was
the effect of original sin, and that Adam could not
laugh before the fall. Some of the early Christians
felt so strongly the incompatibility of strong human
emotions with the divine nature that they expunged
the words “Jesus wept.”

[6] Perhaps Solomon was amused by them, for in the
catalogue of the valuable things brought in his ships
are apes and peacocks.

[7] I cannot see in Homer any of that philosophic
satire on the condition of mortals, which some have
found in those passages where men are represented
as being deceived and tricked by the gods. Anything
so deep would be beyond humour. He very probably
conceived that the gods, whom he represented as similar
to men, were sometimes not above playing severe practical
jokes on them. The so-called irony of Sophocles
in like manner, is too philosophical and bitter for
humour.

[8] Tom Brown, the humorist, says, Lycambes complimented
the Iambics of Archilochus with the most convincing
proof of their wit and goodness.